LSAT 105 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q14

LR Question 14 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Yolanda: Gaining access to computers without…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

ARGUMENTS: Yolanda says that computer crimes are less dangerous than joyriding. Joyriding can hurt people.

Arjun disagrees. He points out that computer crimes could sometimes hurt people. Hacking medical records could endanger lives.

ANALYSIS: Arjun is trying to prove that computer crimes are at least as dangerous as joyriding. He can’t do that with a single example.

Further, he hasn’t even shown that computer crimes ever actually d0 hurt people. He said people could be hurt if medical records were hacked. He hasn’t shown that has ever happened.

In a certain sense, you can’t say computer crimes are as dangerous as joyriding if computer crimes have never led to any actual danger. They’re just potentially dangerous.

___________

1. Yolanda’s distinction is that joyriding is more dangerous than computer crimes. Arjun doesn’t have to stick with that distinction…he’s disagreeing with her!
2. Arjun does provide a bit of evidence. He’s shown there is potential danger.
3. CORRECT. “Actuality” means “something that is real, that has actually happened.” Arjun hasn’t shown that people ever have been hurt because of computer crimes. He’s just shown the potential.
4. Arjun’s example is neither sufficient nor necessary to prove his point. He hasn’t shown an actual danger, and there could be other dangers.
5. Arjun’s evidence is that computer crimes can cause danger and his conclusion is that computer crimes can be dangerous. That seems consistent.

Recap: The question begins with “Yolanda: Gaining access to computers without”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Flaw questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.